God is a different question, when its unprovable it must be right according to Cox, like pixies,goblins, elfs etc, all real things, because we cannot prove or disprove them.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of atheists have no interest in having a say in making public policy.
They (we) simply wish to prevent the religious from setting that policy or trying to indoctrinate kids in schools.
If the religious would shut up and stay out of schools and politics, There would be barely a word from atheists.
The existence or otherwise of a god is a none issue in a biology class or an operating theatre, or in deciding foreign policy, or in deciding who can marry who.
Isn't Sweeney a comedian? And Dawkins and the others are more or less pop culture, loud-mouthed atheists, not intelligent atheists who truly understand religion and why people follow it. Anyone who can be so inane as to suggest that somehow Our Lady of Fatima should have "done better" by taking the bullet away from John Paul II altogether have little or no understanding of the spiritual life.
@chrisman737 Believing that a Church-proclaimed superhuman being intervened to prevent a bullet from critically wounding the head of that church does not involve the "spiritual life." It involves religion. And anyone who would make such a nonsensical claim--and mean it literally--has little or no understanding of reality. Dawkins doesn't have to be such a smart-ass about it, but he's right to call people on the things they say.
@TheUkester69, you obviously don't know about many other things -- including the significance of the date (May 13), the fact that he is Polish, the fact that he is dressed in white and fell down amidst gunfire. It is not just a nice thought that the pope had...it is based on things that were said many many years before. You are treading in territory you do not understand. And Dawkins...dito.
@chrisman737 So explain it. Is your belief based upon this "secret" that was "revealed" by the Vatican 19 years after the assassination attempt? A "secret" that was supposedly written down and just stored--but not revealed--for decades? And doesn't the "secret" indicate that the Bishop in White (along with many others) died, rather than surviving an attempt on his life? You're saying this proves that Our Lady literally protected the Pope? You're absolutely right. I don't understand.
@TheUkester69 , my belief system is not based entirely on this secret, nor should it be. It was revealed -- but to certain people only. The reason now is obvious -- people were interpreting and reinterpreting the message like crazy even before it was revealed. Such immaturity would be compounded with a pre-mature publication. Lastly, the secret is highly symbolic, which means it does not have to be taken literally all the way through. "Death" could mean many things.
There is no god anymore forwith the people have killed even a concept to which he could exist; a priority to which understanding is in concept to certain auras and concepts that do not exist in the world today, to which people will put it to there own efforts and using bad judgement to use a document to: religious holidays and other reasons that only hold pain in your face as false reason and then to make stupid decisions by them. No free spirit is playing your pocket pinball!
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The accusations of Dawkins being a fundamentalist always makes me laugh since I feel like if it wasn't for religion trying to push nonsense like Creationism into the science classroom he probably wouldn't have become such a renown critic of religion. Dawkins would probably much rather be spending his time studying and writing about evolution than getting drawn into the pointless debate over which religions sky god has the bigger penis.
A fundamentalist for openly attacking one of the most abominable creations of mankind? This isn't fundamentalism, it's a reaction to centuries of undeserved reverence towards stupid unfunded mindrotting doctrines. Pretending to be respectful in regards to religion is pure hypocrisy, because religion has NEVER been respectful towards opposing thoughts (witch hunts, inquisition, the crusades, etc). It only sounds strident, because a taboo is being broken, period.
Dawkins the 'most strident'? What believers really mean is Dawkins doesn't feign 'respect' that they have gotten used to for many centuries. What part of that paragraph he reads in this video is false? LOL Prof Cox is a magnificent apologist for religion. What a feat considering that you cannot pin down "real" Christian doctrine.
Wow, Sam Harris is dumber than I thought (Dawkins is just as dumb as I thought)... It seems like Paul Kurtz and Harvey Cox are the only ones who know what they're talking about. These new atheists would benefit a lot from a little bit of study in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion. Turns out atheism IS justifiable, just not the way they do it.
@derfos666 "These new atheists would benefit a lot from a little bit of study in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion."
You could probably benefit from reading their books instead of commenting on their position based on a few seconds of youtube clips. I also find it astonishing that you though Cox "knew what he was talking about". In this video, he's pretty much the only one given time to present a case - -and it boils down to "You can't prove or disprove God".
@derfos666 That is flat out moronic. It's true only in the inane sense that you don't prove any claim about external reality - ever, but scientists are completely aware of this as it's part of the core of the scientific method, and would not make such a claim. What they claim is that : If religions claim gods interact with the world or make claims about nature, such claims are testable and can potentially be falsified. If religions do not make such claims, they are entirely vacuous.
@derfos666 And that, in a nutshell, is what Sam Harris etc are harping on and on about - insisting that there must necessarily be a harmony between beliefs and experienced reality if those beliefs are true about said experienced reality. The degraded mindset of Cox and most people who hold superstitious views in the west is that belief without evidence is ok, and even encouraged as a virtue. Even if your faith is flat out refuted by observation.
@derfos666 This approach, sadly, is what enables the Jihadist suicide bomber. His mistake is that he actually has no evidence that the claim is true and blindly trusts other people who don't have any evidence either. Justification for beliefs about reality always boil down to evidence. He has adopted the epistemology of a child.
"More evidence based beliefs, less beliefs based on blind faith = a better world." should not be a controversial message, or a reason to call people dumb.
Why does Harvard have a divinity school? Do they also have a department that studies unicorns, fairies, and ghosts? Harvey Cox began his career as a Baptist minister, so he should know dogma when he sees it, unfortunately he does not, or else chooses not to understand that atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief.
The extent to which a "new atheism" exists is only so in that atheists are no longer letting the bullshit of moderates like Cox fly. If there are things that can neither be proved nor disproved, hypocritically pretending that you are justified in believing in them anyway is not something rational thinkers will continue to abide. If you prove yourself incompetent to engage in rational discourse–as Cox does here–we have no recourse but to excuse you from the podium.
calling richard dawkins a fundamentalist equivalent to jerry falwell is like saying a person with a md or basic doctor is a fundamentalist rationalist compared to a witch doctor....
the idea that because god cant be disproven doesnt add validity to believe in such a god, ie we cant disprove zeus, easter bunny, santa etc....
@13stevejohnson Are you sure? Dawkins is arrogantly dogmatic, like extremists. He's got a perverse craving to impose his worldview on others, like extremists. He interprets religious scriptures in the most literal and transparent way possible, like extremists. He has no understanding of authentic religion, like extremists. He suspicious of everyone that does not conform to his worldview and considers them a threat to everything he finds sacred, like extremists ;)
@13stevejohnson Yet Dawkins as do Harris and Dennet, and so did Hitchens has this obsessive need to shove his beliefs down everybody else's throats just like fundamentalist Christians do. He and the other New Atheists are against faith completely, but yet has this extreme faith that religion is the greatest evil in the world and needs to be destroyed. Like a religious zealot, he ridicules anybody who disagrees with his views.
You lost all credibility when you said, "...extreme faith that religion is the greatest evil in the world and needs to be destroyed." Besides, no one is forcing anyone to believe ANYTHING. Sam Harris, in particular, argues for civil discourse on these topics which, in our society today, are protected by social taboos. Atheism, like the secular in this video implies, has no substance, in that it is simply the lack of belief in a personal god and/or ultimate god/reality. No faith required.
@cnestudy1 It's just not the case. In the god delusion Dawkins is arguing against even the broadest kind of godbelief - deism - and he does so quite convincingly I have to add.
So, dr. Fox wants to keep pretending to be completely oblivious about the fucked up shit present in religion? Why should we only cherrypick the pretty bits and try to slide the crazy stuff under the carpet? Its precisely this kind of hypocrisy what makes religion so damn repugnant. Ironically, religious people often claim to have a moral highground for believing unproven fantasies, while atheists get satanized for questioning their bullshit.
We have to act with force against religious dogma in the US. If we don't, religion will continue to hamper education, politics, ethics, and nearly every aspect of our lives. America is sick. Religious dicks (mostly Chrsitians) in America recently protested mosques in Temecula (CA), Nashville (TN), Staten Island, Wisconsin, and Florida. Then people get mad when we all think that the protests about the mosques near ground zero is bigoted (some churches even want to burn copies of the Qur’an).
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a different question, when its unprovable it must be right according to Cox, like pixies,goblins, elfs etc, all real things, because we cannot prove or disprove them.
ristan57 1 week ago
Divinity School. lmao
DaGavinX 2 weeks ago
Actually, the overwhelming majority of atheists have no interest in having a say in making public policy.
They (we) simply wish to prevent the religious from setting that policy or trying to indoctrinate kids in schools.
If the religious would shut up and stay out of schools and politics, There would be barely a word from atheists.
The existence or otherwise of a god is a none issue in a biology class or an operating theatre, or in deciding foreign policy, or in deciding who can marry who.
baldieman64 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldieman64 Well said!!
ristan57 1 week ago
Isn't Sweeney a comedian? And Dawkins and the others are more or less pop culture, loud-mouthed atheists, not intelligent atheists who truly understand religion and why people follow it. Anyone who can be so inane as to suggest that somehow Our Lady of Fatima should have "done better" by taking the bullet away from John Paul II altogether have little or no understanding of the spiritual life.
chrisman737 2 months ago
@chrisman737 Believing that a Church-proclaimed superhuman being intervened to prevent a bullet from critically wounding the head of that church does not involve the "spiritual life." It involves religion. And anyone who would make such a nonsensical claim--and mean it literally--has little or no understanding of reality. Dawkins doesn't have to be such a smart-ass about it, but he's right to call people on the things they say.
TheUkester69 2 months ago
@TheUkester69, you obviously don't know about many other things -- including the significance of the date (May 13), the fact that he is Polish, the fact that he is dressed in white and fell down amidst gunfire. It is not just a nice thought that the pope had...it is based on things that were said many many years before. You are treading in territory you do not understand. And Dawkins...dito.
chrisman737 2 months ago
@chrisman737 So explain it. Is your belief based upon this "secret" that was "revealed" by the Vatican 19 years after the assassination attempt? A "secret" that was supposedly written down and just stored--but not revealed--for decades? And doesn't the "secret" indicate that the Bishop in White (along with many others) died, rather than surviving an attempt on his life? You're saying this proves that Our Lady literally protected the Pope? You're absolutely right. I don't understand.
TheUkester69 2 months ago
@TheUkester69 , my belief system is not based entirely on this secret, nor should it be. It was revealed -- but to certain people only. The reason now is obvious -- people were interpreting and reinterpreting the message like crazy even before it was revealed. Such immaturity would be compounded with a pre-mature publication. Lastly, the secret is highly symbolic, which means it does not have to be taken literally all the way through. "Death" could mean many things.
chrisman737 2 months ago
1:58 "I think Richard Dawkins is a kind of Jerry Fallwell of the Atheists".
Can SOMEONE please slap that ol' fool for talking smack?
sooperfukker 3 months ago
There is no god anymore forwith the people have killed even a concept to which he could exist; a priority to which understanding is in concept to certain auras and concepts that do not exist in the world today, to which people will put it to there own efforts and using bad judgement to use a document to: religious holidays and other reasons that only hold pain in your face as false reason and then to make stupid decisions by them. No free spirit is playing your pocket pinball!
in2dionysus 3 months ago
If there's a god who is actually doing anything, such as answering prayers, we would be able to empirically test for evidence that it happens. Google
heart patient prayer study
to see the results of yet another properly conducted scientific study showing that prayer does nothing.
That's exactly what one would expect if gods are imaginary.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
i disliked only for the deceptive title
PaulSyp 5 months ago
shit I thought it was Lesley Stahl from 60 minutes!
shutuprafa 6 months ago
The accusations of Dawkins being a fundamentalist always makes me laugh since I feel like if it wasn't for religion trying to push nonsense like Creationism into the science classroom he probably wouldn't have become such a renown critic of religion. Dawkins would probably much rather be spending his time studying and writing about evolution than getting drawn into the pointless debate over which religions sky god has the bigger penis.
ArtimusClydeFrog 6 months ago
Comment removed
leon327 6 months ago
A fundamentalist for openly attacking one of the most abominable creations of mankind? This isn't fundamentalism, it's a reaction to centuries of undeserved reverence towards stupid unfunded mindrotting doctrines. Pretending to be respectful in regards to religion is pure hypocrisy, because religion has NEVER been respectful towards opposing thoughts (witch hunts, inquisition, the crusades, etc). It only sounds strident, because a taboo is being broken, period.
Silly bigots...
hellhammerz666 9 months ago
Dawkins the 'most strident'? What believers really mean is Dawkins doesn't feign 'respect' that they have gotten used to for many centuries. What part of that paragraph he reads in this video is false? LOL Prof Cox is a magnificent apologist for religion. What a feat considering that you cannot pin down "real" Christian doctrine.
freeurmind2 9 months ago in playlist Atheism Debates/Interviews
Comment removed
freeurmind2 9 months ago in playlist Atheism Debates/Interviews
Wow, Sam Harris is dumber than I thought (Dawkins is just as dumb as I thought)... It seems like Paul Kurtz and Harvey Cox are the only ones who know what they're talking about. These new atheists would benefit a lot from a little bit of study in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion. Turns out atheism IS justifiable, just not the way they do it.
derfos666 10 months ago
@derfos666 "These new atheists would benefit a lot from a little bit of study in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion."
You could probably benefit from reading their books instead of commenting on their position based on a few seconds of youtube clips. I also find it astonishing that you though Cox "knew what he was talking about". In this video, he's pretty much the only one given time to present a case - -and it boils down to "You can't prove or disprove God".
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@derfos666 That is flat out moronic. It's true only in the inane sense that you don't prove any claim about external reality - ever, but scientists are completely aware of this as it's part of the core of the scientific method, and would not make such a claim. What they claim is that : If religions claim gods interact with the world or make claims about nature, such claims are testable and can potentially be falsified. If religions do not make such claims, they are entirely vacuous.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@derfos666 And that, in a nutshell, is what Sam Harris etc are harping on and on about - insisting that there must necessarily be a harmony between beliefs and experienced reality if those beliefs are true about said experienced reality. The degraded mindset of Cox and most people who hold superstitious views in the west is that belief without evidence is ok, and even encouraged as a virtue. Even if your faith is flat out refuted by observation.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@derfos666 This approach, sadly, is what enables the Jihadist suicide bomber. His mistake is that he actually has no evidence that the claim is true and blindly trusts other people who don't have any evidence either. Justification for beliefs about reality always boil down to evidence. He has adopted the epistemology of a child.
"More evidence based beliefs, less beliefs based on blind faith = a better world." should not be a controversial message, or a reason to call people dumb.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
Comment removed
heathdwatts 10 months ago
Why does Harvard have a divinity school? Do they also have a department that studies unicorns, fairies, and ghosts? Harvey Cox began his career as a Baptist minister, so he should know dogma when he sees it, unfortunately he does not, or else chooses not to understand that atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief.
heathdwatts 10 months ago
Comment removed
heathdwatts 10 months ago
Jerry Fallwell of the atheists? lol
Heres another reason to laugh: I did a spell check on Fallwell before posting this comment and the spellcheck suggested Falafel.
Neanderthalcouzin 10 months ago 2
To think, Harvard began as a divinity school and now the divinity part is competing against the dental school. Prof. Cox is fighting for his job.
archetype0 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't be a fundamentalist when there is no dogma
TheCycadsAreAudible 10 months ago
04:00 you got yourself a smart man.
paperfreeck 11 months ago
03:10 you have a cop out.
paperfreeck 11 months ago
i loves me some sam harris.
logsdonj 11 months ago
Professor Cocks/Cox... quite an apt name, if I say so myself.
Blynx1991 11 months ago
The extent to which a "new atheism" exists is only so in that atheists are no longer letting the bullshit of moderates like Cox fly. If there are things that can neither be proved nor disproved, hypocritically pretending that you are justified in believing in them anyway is not something rational thinkers will continue to abide. If you prove yourself incompetent to engage in rational discourse–as Cox does here–we have no recourse but to excuse you from the podium.
quaternio 1 year ago 4
No Hitchens?
Twalker06 1 year ago
the usefulness of the religion is not the argument for the truth of religious doctrines?
and how do you analyze how much truth there is in scientific theories? The only way is to see hum much they correspond to reality.
niinja2 1 year ago
most narrow...ehmm..
its called LOGIC!..
mlonster 1 year ago
@mlonster
no its called idiocy, you dont read old texts out of context of that time and culture.
to call it logic simply shows that anything you dont agree with you call irrational
niinja2 1 year ago
calling richard dawkins a fundamentalist equivalent to jerry falwell is like saying a person with a md or basic doctor is a fundamentalist rationalist compared to a witch doctor....
the idea that because god cant be disproven doesnt add validity to believe in such a god, ie we cant disprove zeus, easter bunny, santa etc....
13stevejohnson 1 year ago 37
@13stevejohnson May I call Dawkins of MILITANT?:)
Logosapologetica 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson Are you sure? Dawkins is arrogantly dogmatic, like extremists. He's got a perverse craving to impose his worldview on others, like extremists. He interprets religious scriptures in the most literal and transparent way possible, like extremists. He has no understanding of authentic religion, like extremists. He suspicious of everyone that does not conform to his worldview and considers them a threat to everything he finds sacred, like extremists ;)
Pythagoras211 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson Yet Dawkins as do Harris and Dennet, and so did Hitchens has this obsessive need to shove his beliefs down everybody else's throats just like fundamentalist Christians do. He and the other New Atheists are against faith completely, but yet has this extreme faith that religion is the greatest evil in the world and needs to be destroyed. Like a religious zealot, he ridicules anybody who disagrees with his views.
joetufano719 1 month ago
You lost all credibility when you said, "...extreme faith that religion is the greatest evil in the world and needs to be destroyed." Besides, no one is forcing anyone to believe ANYTHING. Sam Harris, in particular, argues for civil discourse on these topics which, in our society today, are protected by social taboos. Atheism, like the secular in this video implies, has no substance, in that it is simply the lack of belief in a personal god and/or ultimate god/reality. No faith required.
inripef 1 month ago
Believing anything without evidence is stupid. Whether that is religion or New Age shit or 2012 nonsense. Still ridiculous.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago 3
what shit for journalism
rt36crazyfists 1 year ago
@cnestudy1 It's just not the case. In the god delusion Dawkins is arguing against even the broadest kind of godbelief - deism - and he does so quite convincingly I have to add.
kaifroland 1 year ago
So, dr. Fox wants to keep pretending to be completely oblivious about the fucked up shit present in religion? Why should we only cherrypick the pretty bits and try to slide the crazy stuff under the carpet? Its precisely this kind of hypocrisy what makes religion so damn repugnant. Ironically, religious people often claim to have a moral highground for believing unproven fantasies, while atheists get satanized for questioning their bullshit.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
cox dude is diluded. doesnt get atheism
xamot27 1 year ago
We have to act with force against religious dogma in the US. If we don't, religion will continue to hamper education, politics, ethics, and nearly every aspect of our lives. America is sick. Religious dicks (mostly Chrsitians) in America recently protested mosques in Temecula (CA), Nashville (TN), Staten Island, Wisconsin, and Florida. Then people get mad when we all think that the protests about the mosques near ground zero is bigoted (some churches even want to burn copies of the Qur’an).
jclark03 1 year ago
@jclark03 burning the koran is good, but dont forget to add the bible and torah to the blaze
mittROMNEY666 1 year ago 31
Gentlest of the professional non-believers? Are the religous gentle to opposing views?
We want equal consideration and less prejudice.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago